Try and name a series where somebody bowled better than Warne did in the 2005 Ashes?
And lets keep it intellectual and not just stat based. Anything against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or even the West Indies or NZ wont count. It has to be a a performance against one of the better teams.

Also try naming a more impacting series than what Flintoff did. Freddie fired at all the right times. Be it putting on a 50 run partnership with Simon Jones, to taking plenty of wickets in the 5th test. The man was built for the stage.

Of course we'll mention Botham's Ashes ahead of it... there's probably an Imran Khan series where he did awesome.

What a great series it was for both men. I never wanna stop talking about it.

17-03-2006, 04:25 AM

Richard

Warne almost certainly bowled better in 1993 than he did in 2005. It's just that his brilliance was far more noticable than in 1993 because so much of the rest of the team was utterly woeful.

17-03-2006, 05:10 AM

Francis

Warne was unquestionably better in the 2005 Ashes than in any series he participated in during 1993.

Warne had a bowling average below 20 in the 2005 and took 40 wickets. He had a strike-rate of below 38 balls per wicket. These figures rank up there with even the most skewered... only Warne's figures aren't skewered. You can go back to SF Barnes' figures. An average of 16, better than Warne's... and a slightly worse strike-rate of 41.

If anything, the fact that he had to carry the Aussie team stopped people from realising that he was actually having one of the best series ever.

In 1993 England were shocked by Shane Warne. After the Gatting Ball and another one that knocked over Robyn Smith, England went into uber defensive mode. Warne would bowl 40 overs and go for only 70 runs... but he wouldn't get wickets. It was a total shut-down on scoring runs off him. They were only successful against him in one match. Now granted, Warne captured the people's imagination in that series with his bamboozling. But his strike-rate was in the 70s - almost twice as much as his 2005 series. And his average was poor.

Warne might have a series from 1993-1997 where he did as good as he did in the Ashes. I always felt that period was the best peak in bowling cricket history before his finger surgery. But I can't think of one series where he would have done that well.

Maybe the 1994 Ashes in Australia? I don't know. I honestly think I saw one of the best bowling displays ever in the 2004 Ashes. I believe if you combine the economy of Lee, Kasprowitz and Tait... you might find they went at over 4 runs an over.

17-03-2006, 12:32 PM

marc71178

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Warne almost certainly bowled better in 1993 than he did in 2005.

And you'd know that how exactly?

Best you can get is limited highlights, which are hardly likely to show anything except his good balls.

17-03-2006, 02:10 PM

luckyeddie

Warne terrified the life out of England in 1993, but he was nowhere near as effective as he was in 2005.

The true sign of a great bowler is to have the ability to do what the batsman doesn't expect, and that's what Shane did in 1993.

What he has done often since, and did so time and time again against England, especially in 2005, was to take things a stage further. He can now put the ball where the batsman doesn't want it - in their minds.

17-03-2006, 02:30 PM

Richard

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc71178

And you'd know that how exactly?

Best you can get is limited highlights, which are hardly likely to show anything except his good balls.

And countless people who've said that Warne has never been as good since his shoulder and finger injuries as before.

17-03-2006, 02:33 PM

Richard

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyeddie

Warne terrified the life out of England in 1993, but he was nowhere near as effective as he was in 2005.

The true sign of a great bowler is to have the ability to do what the batsman doesn't expect, and that's what Shane did in 1993.

What he has done often since, and did so time and time again against England, especially in 2005, was to take things a stage further. He can now put the ball where the batsman doesn't want it - in their minds.

Do you seriously not think that Warne's being, in Michael Henderson's words, the writer of the music, the arranger of the score, the conductor, and at times the player of all the instruments, might just have made a slight difference? In 1993 there were countless other contributors to Australia's superiority.
Fighting against the tide, especially so phenominally well, often makes a good performance look even better.

17-03-2006, 02:44 PM

Richard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francis

Warne was unquestionably better in the 2005 Ashes than in any series he participated in during 1993.

Warne had a bowling average below 20 in the 2005 and took 40 wickets. He had a strike-rate of below 38 balls per wicket. These figures rank up there with even the most skewered... only Warne's figures aren't skewered. You can go back to SF Barnes' figures. An average of 16, better than Warne's... and a slightly worse strike-rate of 41.

If anything, the fact that he had to carry the Aussie team stopped people from realising that he was actually having one of the best series ever.

In 1993 England were shocked by Shane Warne. After the Gatting Ball and another one that knocked over Robyn Smith, England went into uber defensive mode. Warne would bowl 40 overs and go for only 70 runs... but he wouldn't get wickets. It was a total shut-down on scoring runs off him. They were only successful against him in one match. Now granted, Warne captured the people's imagination in that series with his bamboozling. But his strike-rate was in the 70s - almost twice as much as his 2005 series. And his average was poor.

Warne might have a series from 1993-1997 where he did as good as he did in the Ashes. I always felt that period was the best peak in bowling cricket history before his finger surgery. But I can't think of one series where he would have done that well.

Maybe the 1994 Ashes in Australia? I don't know. I honestly think I saw one of the best bowling displays ever in the 2004 Ashes. I believe if you combine the economy of Lee, Kasprowitz and Tait... you might find they went at over 4 runs an over.

Warne's average was poor in 1995? 25.79 is poor, whaat?
If England had had the stupidity to play in 1993 as they played in 2005 I'd be willing to bet he'd have taken closer to 40, then... probably at about 15-16, if not even less.
In 1994\95, in fact, his figures were even better but that disguises the fact that he was actually pretty average in the final 3 games, and sensationally good in the First and Second. In 1993 he was much more consistent.
2005 is comfortably the worst attack Warne has ever bowled amongst in an Ashes... 1993 had Reiffel, Hughes, May and McDermott for 1 Test; 1994\95 had McDermott, Fleming and a McGrath who was just starting to improve (and Mark Waugh, too); 1997 had probably the best - McGrath, Reiffel, Gillespie, Kasprowicz; 2001 had McGrath and Gillespie; 2002\03 (though of course he only played the first 3 Tests) had McGrath and Gillespie again.
The fact that Warne was so obviously the shining-light not only meant he got more opportunities to take wickets, but also played a more herioc role.
As far as plenty fine conasseurs of the game are concerned, however, Warne's best days were between 1992\93 and 1997\98.

17-03-2006, 02:58 PM

luckyeddie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Do you seriously not think that Warne's being, in Michael Henderson's words, the writer of the music, the arranger of the score, the conductor, and at times the player of all the instruments, might just have made a slight difference? In 1993 there were countless other contributors to Australia's superiority.
Fighting against the tide, especially so phenominally well, often makes a good performance look even better.

I prefer to use my own words, Richard - at least then I have a reasonable idea of what they mean ;).

17-03-2006, 03:13 PM

Richard

Give us your own words for 1993, then.
In MH's... he was the centrepiece-player of the orchestra (I don't know enough about orchestras to know what that'd be).
Give us yours.

17-03-2006, 05:27 PM

Francis

[q.u.o.t.e.]Warne terrified the life out of England in 1993, but he was nowhere near as effective as he was in 2005. [/q.u.o.t.e.]

Sums it up perfectly.

[q.u.o.t.e.]And countless people who've said that Warne has never been as good since his shoulder and finger injuries as before.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

And then there's people who think, since the Ashes and since Warne got 96 wickets in a calendar year, he is bowling better than ever. People like Ricky Ponting and Richie Benaud. Warne himself thinks he's bowling as good as he ever has (in 2005).

[q.u.o.t.e.]In 1993 there were countless other contributors to Australia's superiority.
Fighting against the tide, especially so phenominally well, often makes a good performance look even better.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

Doesn't just make him look good, it actually makes him good. I personally think Warne wouldn't have gotten 40 wickets if he had a full strength bowling line-up performing like they can. Although if you ask C_C, it's impossible to help your figures by bowling longer without pressure from the other end. I don't buy that. But still, 40 wickets is incredible.

[q.u.o.t.e.]Warne's average was poor in 1995? 25.79 is poor, whaat[/q.u.o.t.e.]

Don't recall ever calling it poor.

[q.u.o.t.e.]If England had had the stupidity to play in 1993 as they played in 2005 I'd be willing to bet he'd have taken closer to 40, then... probably at about 15-16, if not even less.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

Fair point. I disagree. Warne got wickets in 2005 not because England tried playing him more aggressively. The crowds were cheering every ball an Englishmen defensively played against him. Warne just asked more questions of the batsmen. To help your case I will add that, against common thought, England had good players of spin in 1993 like Gatting, Hick and Gooch who could defend their wicket better.

[q.u.o.t.e.]In 1994\95, in fact, his figures were even better but that disguises the fact that he was actually pretty average in the final 3 games, and sensationally good in the First and Second. In 1993 he was much more consistent.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

His figures were not better for the entire series in 1994/95. He took his best ever figures of 8-71 at the GABBA, got a hat-trick at the MCG, and had a lacking last three games. In 1993 he was consistent but not striking.

[q.u.o.t.e.]The fact that Warne was so obviously the shining-light not only meant he got more opportunities to take wickets, but also played a more herioc role.
As far as plenty fine conasseurs of the game are concerned, however, Warne's best days were between 1992\93 and 1997\98.[/q.u.o.t.e.]

I agree a little. Personally I think he would have gotten around 34 wickets if he had more competition for wickets. But the real teller is his strike-rate. Guys who carry teams and pad up wickets often strike much much higher when they're getting more wickets. Warne having a strike-rate below 38 for the Ashes is astonishing

17-03-2006, 05:27 PM

Francis

That's it. I'm going back to bold letters.

17-03-2006, 07:00 PM

Scaly piscine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francis

That's it. I'm going back to bold letters.

Just remove the dots and your quotes will work properly, i.e. [quote] instead of [q.u.o.t.e.] and so forth.

17-03-2006, 07:59 PM

andyc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francis

That's it. I'm going back to bold letters.

Oh sorry mate, guess I didn't explain myself before when I told you about it. As Scaly said, you have to remove the dots. I included them because otherwise I would have just written in a quote

18-03-2006, 01:45 AM

luckyeddie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Give us your own words for 1993, then.
In MH's... he was the centrepiece-player of the orchestra (I don't know enough about orchestras to know what that'd be).
Give us yours.